nmrsnr:This just in: Lawyers sometimes defend interests that do not comport with their own ideologies.

The big news in the papers in Barbados when my wife and I were there on our honeymoon was a lawyer who was known as stridently "anti-buggery" having to defend someone accused of "crimes against nature".

What weirded me out the most was that it was written as a lighthearted, humorous news story that threw around some very prejudicial views and terms with gay abandon.

Brostorm:Calmamity: It's different when it affects their families directly.

Just like abortion.

Just like every lawyer who defends an accused murderer is actually pro murder.

You are a complete moron.

FTFA:

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

grumpfuff:Brostorm: Calmamity: It's different when it affects their families directly.

Just like abortion.

Just like every lawyer who defends an accused murderer is actually pro murder.

You are a complete moron.

FTFA:

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

Fair enough, but there's a difference between thinking the states have a right to do that if they see fit and thinking states should exercise that right. He might very well believe the latter, but it's not clear from that sentence.

Last Man on Earth:grumpfuff: Brostorm: Calmamity: It's different when it affects their families directly.

Just like abortion.

Just like every lawyer who defends an accused murderer is actually pro murder.

You are a complete moron.

FTFA:

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

Fair enough, but there's a difference between thinking the states have a right to do that if they see fit and thinking states should exercise that right. He might very well believe the latter, but it's not clear from that sentence.

grumpfuff:Rent Party: Pro tip: Lawyers are paid to argue the law and adhere to courtroom rules. They are not paid to believe what they argue.

grumpfuff: FTFA:

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

So discrimination is OK as long as it's at the state level. Glad we got that cleared up.

Last Man on Earth:grumpfuff: Brostorm: Calmamity: It's different when it affects their families directly.

Just like abortion.

Just like every lawyer who defends an accused murderer is actually pro murder.

You are a complete moron.

FTFA:

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

Fair enough, but there's a difference between thinking the states have a right to do that if they see fit and thinking states should exercise that right. He might very well believe the latter, but it's not clear from that sentence.

The word "reason" is what makes it sound clear to me. He thinks(or at least thought) there was a justification for not allowing gays to marry, when there isn't one.

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

Even if he believed that states had the right, and therefore wanted to defend their right to exclude same sex marriages, it does not necessarily mean that he is against same sex marriages.

I may believe that the state has the right to do something doesn't mean I think they should be doing something.

Yes, I'm probably giving him more of the benefit of the doubt than he deserves, but since we're talking law, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

FatherChaos:grumpfuff: Rent Party: Pro tip: Lawyers are paid to argue the law and adhere to courtroom rules. They are not paid to believe what they argue.

grumpfuff: FTFA:

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

So discrimination is OK as long as it's at the state level. Glad we got that cleared up.

I was under the impression we had cleared that up years ago. State's rights and such.

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

Even if he believed that states had the right, and therefore wanted to defend their right to exclude same sex marriages, it does not necessarily mean that he is against same sex marriages.

I may believe that the state has the right to do something doesn't mean I think they should be doing something.

Yes, I'm probably giving him more of the benefit of the doubt than he deserves, but since we're talking law, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

grumpfuff:The word "reason" is what makes it sound clear to me. He thinks(or at least thought) there was a justification for not allowing gays to marry, when there isn't one.

Our legal system simply doesn't work if an asshole lawyer can't take a shiatty case on behalf of assholes, or defend shiatheads and their shiatty laws. I can't fault this guy, even if his cause or client is abhorrent. It is the system. We need people to defend racists, cop killers, killer cops, abortionists and clinic bombers, and to defend these horrible laws passed by a body of knuckle dragging barely literate politicians and bigoted stupid voters while someone else advances the cause on the other side of the case.

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

Even if he believed that states had the right, and therefore wanted to defend their right to exclude same sex marriages, it does not necessarily mean that he is against same sex marriages.

I may believe that the state has the right to do something doesn't mean I think they should be doing something.

Yes, I'm probably giving him more of the benefit of the doubt than he deserves, but since we're talking law, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Sounds like the "but what he meant was" defense. Kind of like how bible beaters tell us their own interpretations of god's word, even though he's supposed to be infallible. She's a brave soul for still letting him be around this thing he's completely against.

grumpfuff:grumpfuff: The word "reason" is what makes it sound clear to me. He thinks(or at least thought) there was a justification for not allowing gays to marry, when there isn't one.

Even that isn't sufficient, at least to me. I could reasonably agree that the government may have both a right and a reason to regulate firearms (I'm really not trying to make this a gun rights thread, honestly, it's just the most obvious example I can come up with) and therefore want to defend a legitimate law, while disagreeing with the particular regulation itself.

Again, this is probably not the case here, but the quote doesn't necessarily demonstrate that.

grumpfuff:Brostorm: Calmamity: It's different when it affects their families directly.

Just like abortion.

Just like every lawyer who defends an accused murderer is actually pro murder.

You are a complete moron.

FTFA:

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

A lawyer who has never heard of the full faith and credit clause seems like a bad lawyer

nmrsnr:grumpfuff: grumpfuff: The word "reason" is what makes it sound clear to me. He thinks(or at least thought) there was a justification for not allowing gays to marry, when there isn't one.

Even that isn't sufficient, at least to me. I could reasonably agree that the government may have both a right and a reason to regulate firearms (I'm really not trying to make this a gun rights thread, honestly, it's just the most obvious example I can come up with) and therefore want to defend a legitimate law, while disagreeing with the particular regulation itself.

Again, this is probably not the case here, but the quote doesn't necessarily demonstrate that.

Yes, but that quote wasn't from arguing a case, it was from talking to his daughter. If it was me, I would have added a "But I don't support those reasons," or something similar. Instead, it is implied he does actually agree with those reasons(whatever they are), but since I don't think any of the reasons are legitimate, I also don't think there are actual reasons for the states to do so.

To be blunt, if he took the case as a lawyer and did not actually believe it, I see no reason for that conversation to have ever happened, and instead would have been a "Sorry honey, daddy needs a pay check" or whatever.

This is what lawyers do. Support positions for $$$. Its called working.

Nevada's legislature meets for about 70 days every 2 years. Its all we need. At the 2015 session they will likely take steps to legalize both gay marriage and pot. Any new idiotic gun laws will be vetoed by our Republican Governor..

grumpfuff:Emposter: Ah, another thread full of farkers who hate on lawyers because they don't understand that our adversarial system requires competent representation on both sides of even issue we don't like.

Ahh, another complaint that misses the fact that we were talking about the private views he expressed to his daughter, not the position he took in the legal court.

I regret to inform you that you are not the only person in this thread.

Emposter:grumpfuff: Emposter: Ah, another thread full of farkers who hate on lawyers because they don't understand that our adversarial system requires competent representation on both sides of even issue we don't like.

Ahh, another complaint that misses the fact that we were talking about the private views he expressed to his daughter, not the position he took in the legal court.

I regret to inform you that you are not the only person in this thread.

I regret to inform you that I am not the only person taking that position.

grumpfuff:Emposter: grumpfuff: Emposter: Ah, another thread full of farkers who hate on lawyers because they don't understand that our adversarial system requires competent representation on both sides of even issue we don't like.

Ahh, another complaint that misses the fact that we were talking about the private views he expressed to his daughter, not the position he took in the legal court.

I regret to inform you that you are not the only person in this thread.

I regret to inform you that I am not the only person taking that position.

Emposter:grumpfuff: Emposter: grumpfuff: Emposter: Ah, another thread full of farkers who hate on lawyers because they don't understand that our adversarial system requires competent representation on both sides of even issue we don't like.

Ahh, another complaint that misses the fact that we were talking about the private views he expressed to his daughter, not the position he took in the legal court.

I regret to inform you that you are not the only person in this thread.

I regret to inform you that I am not the only person taking that position.

I regret to inform you that that makes no difference at all.

I regret to inform you that words have meanings, and when you say "a thread full of", that implies more than a couple people.

grumpfuff:Emposter: grumpfuff: Emposter: grumpfuff: Emposter: Ah, another thread full of farkers who hate on lawyers because they don't understand that our adversarial system requires competent representation on both sides of even issue we don't like.

Ahh, another complaint that misses the fact that we were talking about the private views he expressed to his daughter, not the position he took in the legal court.

I regret to inform you that you are not the only person in this thread.

I regret to inform you that I am not the only person taking that position.

I regret to inform you that that makes no difference at all.

I regret to inform you that words have meanings, and when you say "a thread full of", that implies more than a couple people.

Republicans never think something is important until it directly affects them. Take St. Reagen: Disliked gun control until someone tried to assassinate him with a gun. Found AIDS laughable until his friend Rock Hudson died from it.

Lives aren't static. Apply time to anyone and they will change. Instead of pointing fingers, how about hoping this is a sign of personal redemption. And reading TFA, it sounds like he was conflicted all along with the whole issue.

Warlordtrooper:grumpfuff: Brostorm: Calmamity: It's different when it affects their families directly.

Just like abortion.

Just like every lawyer who defends an accused murderer is actually pro murder.

You are a complete moron.

FTFA:

Becker wrote that Cooper and his daughter spent hours discussing the case while it was ongoing and disagreed about Cooper's view that states had reason to enshrine the traditional definition of marriage in their constitutions and withhold the right from same-sex couples.

A lawyer who has never heard of the full faith and credit clause seems like a bad lawyer

nmrsnr:grumpfuff: grumpfuff: The word "reason" is what makes it sound clear to me. He thinks(or at least thought) there was a justification for not allowing gays to marry, when there isn't one.

Even that isn't sufficient, at least to me. I could reasonably agree that the government may have both a right and a reason to regulate firearms (I'm really not trying to make this a gun rights thread, honestly, it's just the most obvious example I can come up with) and therefore want to defend a legitimate law, while disagreeing with the particular regulation itself.

Again, this is probably not the case here, but the quote doesn't necessarily demonstrate that.

That's precisely it.

Take for instance the argument over the death penalty. There is zero question that the legal idea of the death penalty is constitutionally permissible. Whether a death penalty should exist is another situation.

for myself, I'm against the death penalty. That doesn't mean that I should sit idly by while and accept an argument that the death penalty is constitutionally prohibited.

Yes, lawyers do often argue cases that are out of line with their private beliefs. The reality is however, that when you are arguing a high profile case like this one, your name will be associated with your arguments.

Every lawyer has a choice, this guy was not compelled to take the case, he chose to. So boo freaking hoo if he gets associated with his arguments and it is detrimental to him in society at large. He doesn't get some kind of free pass.

grumpfuff:sprgrss: grumpfuff: In its limited ruling, the court sidestepped Cooper's argument that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage

Wait, what? He actually made that argument?

I missed the part where any marriage is a constitutional right.

It's a fundamental right. Sorry that you've missed over a centuries worth of jurisprudence on this.

Sorry that you misinterpreted my point, which was the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to get married.

The Constitution is no longer just the four corners of that piece of paper. It's that piece of paper, plus all of the things that SCOTUS has ever said is also in there. Stuff like the right to travel across state lines, the right to privacy, etc.

It's really the same as saying "this provision means X" or "Y is included in this provision." Just as every court case creates a little bit of new law, every Supreme Court case created a little bit of Constituional Law.

At least have the courage of your convictions and kick out and shun your kid, like Alan Keyes....or, better yet, don't be a bigoted asshole

Do you really not understand how the American legal system works? A lawyer is a hired gun. He is employed to present his employer's case to the best of his ability. It has nothing whatever to do with his personal beliefs. If it did, there probably would no defense attorneys in practice. A good lawyer, like a good debater, can argue either side of a position with equal success. That's his job.

grumpfuff:Ahh, another complaint that misses the fact that we were talking about the private views he expressed to his daughter, not the position he took in the legal court.

Then why did subby post the trolltastic headline focusing on the case he took rather than his private views?

Anyways, as far as people who don't support gay marriage, this guy is less reprehensible than others. "I don't agree with my daughters choice in life but am still willing to support her because of it" is a fark of a lot more preferable than how a lot of people who don't approve of their childrens sexuality treat them.

Warlordtrooper:A lawyer who has never heard of the full faith and credit clause seems like a bad lawyer

Alas the FF&C likely is inapplicable here.

1) the full language of the FF&C states:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

There is a reasonable legal argument that the last bit there states that the Congress can declare that a a particular law gets NO effect. This is basically what Congress did in the sections of DOMA that survived Windsor. Of course some argue that this is not what the framers meant, but it is a colorable argument.

2) The "public policy exception" to the FF&C means that states can ignore the clause if it involves a statutory right granted in one state that contradicts the statutory rights granted in another. This is likley the bigger trump card to universal marriage applicability. Its not a slam dunk either, and there appears to be some movement in the courts to override this exception w/r/t family law, but there are some old terrible cases that upheld anti-miscegenation laws under this rubric.

Emposter:Ah, another thread full of farkers who hate on lawyers because they don't understand that our adversarial system requires competent representation on both sides of even issue we don't like.

It is like "my senator" vs "the senate" all over again - my lawyer is a great guy crusading for justice (for me), everyone else's lawyers are amoral scumbags who should be jailed for the temerity of joining the profession.

grumpfuff:sprgrss: grumpfuff: In its limited ruling, the court sidestepped Cooper's argument that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage

Wait, what? He actually made that argument?

I missed the part where any marriage is a constitutional right.

It's a fundamental right. Sorry that you've missed over a centuries worth of jurisprudence on this.

Sorry that you misinterpreted my point, which was the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to get married.

If you expect the Constitution to provide a full list of what is and what isn't a constitutional right then you are looking at the wrong document. Marriage is a fundamental right because it is deeply rooted in our history and necessary for our idea of ordered liberty. It is a right that preexist our founding and was thus unnecessary to place into our founding document.

grumpfuff:Sorry that you misinterpreted my point, which was the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to get married.

The constitution doesn't explicitly say a lot of things, it's a deeply flawed document and as it is based on common law you have to use many centuries of both American and British jurisprudence to interpret (and in many cases alter) what it means.

peterquince:grumpfuff: sprgrss: grumpfuff: In its limited ruling, the court sidestepped Cooper's argument that there is no constitutional right to same-sex marriage

Wait, what? He actually made that argument?

I missed the part where any marriage is a constitutional right.

It's a fundamental right. Sorry that you've missed over a centuries worth of jurisprudence on this.

Sorry that you misinterpreted my point, which was the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you have the right to get married.

The Constitution is no longer just the four corners of that piece of paper. It's that piece of paper, plus all of the things that SCOTUS has ever said is also in there. Stuff like the right to travel across state lines, the right to privacy, etc.

It's really the same as saying "this provision means X" or "Y is included in this provision." Just as every court case creates a little bit of new law, every Supreme Court case created a little bit of Constituional Law.

Again, I am well aware of that. I know later court findings included the right to marriage as a basic right. But that right is based off jurisprudence, not because it is explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

sprgrss:If you expect the Constitution to provide a full list of what is and what isn't a constitutional right then you are looking at the wrong document. Marriage is a fundamental right because it is deeply rooted in our history and necessary for our idea of ordered liberty. It is a right that preexist our founding and was thus unnecessary to place into our founding document.

It is a fundamental constitutional right, end stop.

lilplatinum:The constitution doesn't explicitly say a lot of things, it's a deeply flawed document and as it is based on common law you have to use many centuries of both American and British jurisprudence to interpret (and in many cases alter) what it means.

grumpfuff:sprgrss: If you expect the Constitution to provide a full list of what is and what isn't a constitutional right then you are looking at the wrong document. Marriage is a fundamental right because it is deeply rooted in our history and necessary for our idea of ordered liberty. It is a right that preexist our founding and was thus unnecessary to place into our founding document.

It is a fundamental constitutional right, end stop.

lilplatinum: The constitution doesn't explicitly say a lot of things, it's a deeply flawed document and as it is based on common law you have to use many centuries of both American and British jurisprudence to interpret (and in many cases alter) what it means.

/facepalm

You are the one missing the point if you think the constitution needs to explicitly mention something in order for it to be a right. The consitution doesn't mention a right to privacy, but at the moment it is a constitutional right.

lilplatinum:You are the one missing the point if you think the constitution needs to explicitly mention something in order for it to be a right. The consitution doesn't mention a right to privacy, but at the moment it is a constitutional right.

Actually that is not the one I would go with, for the simple fact that there is no textural or court created general right to privacy.

Perhaps a better one would be the right to home school your children, or the right to marry, both of which have been found to be fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment. Or heck, the Miranda Warning, which is pretty much pure legislation by the courts so as to enforce the emergent requirements of the 5th.

As to the argument of "show me where it says X explicitly in the constitution" you are rebutting, well, lets just say that making such an argument is usually the fastest way to show you need to be on the legal short bus. Its right up there with starting any argument with "the Tenth Amendment requires . . . " You can pretty much ignore what someone making that argument says w/r/t the law unless they happen to be a sitting federal judge (and even then, they wont usually make daft arguments involving the Tenth).

Teiritzamna:lilplatinum: You are the one missing the point if you think the constitution needs to explicitly mention something in order for it to be a right. The consitution doesn't mention a right to privacy, but at the moment it is a constitutional right.

Actually that is not the one I would go with, for the simple fact that there is no textural or court created general right to privacy.

Perhaps a better one would be the right to home school your children, or the right to marry, both of which have been found to be fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment. Or heck, the Miranda Warning, which is pretty much pure legislation by the courts so as to enforce the emergent requirements of the 5th.

As to the argument of "show me where it says X explicitly in the constitution" you are rebutting, well, lets just say that making such an argument is usually the fastest way to show you need to be on the legal short bus. Its right up there with starting any argument with "the Tenth Amendment requires . . . " You can pretty much ignore what someone making that argument says w/r/t the law unless they happen to be a sitting federal judge (and even then, they wont usually make daft arguments involving the Tenth).

Miranda isn't a Constitutional right. It's a judicially mandated prophylactic. You are the definition of daft.

sprgrss:Teiritzamna: lilplatinum: You are the one missing the point if you think the constitution needs to explicitly mention something in order for it to be a right. The consitution doesn't mention a right to privacy, but at the moment it is a constitutional right.

Actually that is not the one I would go with, for the simple fact that there is no textural or court created general right to privacy.

Perhaps a better one would be the right to home school your children, or the right to marry, both of which have been found to be fundamental rights under the 14th Amendment. Or heck, the Miranda Warning, which is pretty much pure legislation by the courts so as to enforce the emergent requirements of the 5th.

As to the argument of "show me where it says X explicitly in the constitution" you are rebutting, well, lets just say that making such an argument is usually the fastest way to show you need to be on the legal short bus. Its right up there with starting any argument with "the Tenth Amendment requires . . . " You can pretty much ignore what someone making that argument says w/r/t the law unless they happen to be a sitting federal judge (and even then, they wont usually make daft arguments involving the Tenth).

Miranda isn't a Constitutional right. It's a judicially mandated prophylactic. You are the definition of daft.

I was referring to the rights spoken of within the Miranda warning, but fair enough - I wasn't being particularly clear.